http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

An offer for Iranian envoys around the world to attend U.S. Embassy Fourth of July parties has been rescinded “given the events of the past many days,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. The invitation was part of a U.S. outreach to Iran, but so far no Iranian officials had accepted.

That said, his comments do mirror comments made from some other diplomats.

Obama: “”This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work any more in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose,” the US President said. “We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets.”

Ban Ki-moon (UN): The U.N. statement said Ban “calls on the authorities to respect fundamental civil and political rights, especially the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of information.”

“He urges an immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force,” it added.

The statement also said Ban called on the Iranian government and the opposition to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue and legal means.

The bulk of the statement made clear that Ban, whose only previous statement on the crisis called for the will of the Iranian people to be fully respected, was directing his main criticism at the authorities.

I’m confused by your first paragraph. The issue needs to be considered on a broader scale; it’s imperative to consider the thoughts of everyone within the region.

In some respects this situation is a referendum on Islamic theocracy, so it’s more involved than the election itself. I’m not sure if this addresses that first ‘graph, and if not please clarify.

I believe Iranians on both sides of the aisle are getting out of bed generally agreeing on two major points: 1) They want to retain the right to go nuclear, and 2) They don’t want the United States or any other western nation meddling in their affairs.

Here’s a link with a couple quotes from those in Iran. This is anecdotal, of course, but I’m providing this to further explain my perspective:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_iran24.43a2557.html

Obama also has spoken more sharply against Iran, but he has done so in a measured fashion. That naturally is going to earn a label for being soft, but he isn’t the first and that criticism hasn’t been limited to liberals, either. GHWB also tended toward a more cautious approach.

I think Obama must stand up for those universal human rights while taking care not to feed the Iranian propaganda machine. Again, this is about more than just Iran. Heck, even Kissinger has issued approval of Obama’s actions thus far.

Your comment hits the nail on the head.. “The White House is doing its best to do nothing while giving the illusion of doing something.”

That is precisely what is going on here. BHO is attempting to salvage his promise of negotiating with the current regime without precondition. In his mind, he cannot oppose a regime he has promised to sit down with. BHO is so conflicted that he respects a regime that doesn’t even respect the human rights of it’s own citizens, shooting them down like dogs in the street.

BHO is gaming Iran for political gain. In the end, he doesn’t care who wins. He doesn’t care about the people. He only cares that he doesn’t insult the regime. And that is beyond pathetic.

I find it hard to believe that any sentient being actually believes that any measurable number of Iranians hop out of bed each morning wondering about what Obama said and how that makes them look.

In the past we have not viewed sovereignty as a cloak which prevents our speaking out on human rights abuses. In fact, I don’t think a single administration in our history, before the current bunch of yahoos, has viewed speech as interference with a country’s political process. This would include even the loathsome Carter. I know that tyrants routinely claim that to be the case but until this week our president didn’t take his marching orders from them.

A debate requires the participation of people who are at least vaguely conversant on the subject. Regurgitating administration press releases doesn’t qualify.

I bet we are going to hear about hundreds of deaths now.

Sorry for the 2 kowalskis

1) The Iran government is distorting Obama’s words, as mentioned. While they will put words in his mouth no matter what he actually says, the rest of the world can see that Iran is lying, and more importantly people *within* Iran can see that their government is lying to them.

People in Iran tend to be more connected via the internet and technology than many Americans appreciate. The “twitter revolution” is just one piece of evidence.

2) Obama has expressed a respect for sovereignty and respect for universal human rights. Clearly, we have to weigh both concerns, and right now in my opinion it is imperative not to be viewed as meddling.

3) Fair enough on this point. That argument is floating out there (and is implied in even more places), but I mistakenly dragged it into my response.

I’m surprised for the banning threat. I disagreed with this author’s interpretation and explained why, without resorting to insults or sarcasm. I know this is hostile territory, but the folks posting here seem happy to debate, and an echo chamber isn’t what anyone desires.

But I do hear you on point 3. Not my intention.

1. seized power without proper consent from the people in 1979
2. are tyrants
3. organize and fund and actively participate in attacks on our allies and on americans (most lately on our soldiers in iraq) – and threaten to do worse with nuclear weapons

2. You’re right, they are distortting Obama’s words because to daate he hasn’t really said anything other than we must “bear witness” to people being killed in the street.

3. Why do you guys always use “military intervention” as an argument. No one here has mentioned military intervention.

A word of advice. The next time you post on a story and ignore everything that is in the story and/or make up arguments that are not in the story you’re a goner. I don’t have time to deal with imbeciles.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that the Iran government desperately wants Obama to speak harshly against it, because that would enable them to harness anti-western sentiment into a rallying point.

They are distorting Obama’s words to the exact effect of what you are asking for, and the internet savvy population in Iran and everywhere else in the world sees Iranian lies for what they are.

The last thing we need right now is further military intervention, and tough talk without backing it up with force would cause Obama’s international credibility to erode.

We need to stay out of it.

Our public position should have been very clear from the beginning: any violent action by either side in the Iranian election will frowned upon by the United States and the world community, throw in some diplomatic speak… crime against humanity… demonstrates they cannot be trusted… U.N. involvement… blah, blah, blah…

Covertly we should be stirring the pot.

Won’t violent repression quickly shut down dissent? I see there are already “special” courts being assembled to deal with the dissenters. They haven’t let any word out yet about the inevitable “special” prisons.

Statements of support for fair elections and peaceful protest; personal outreach to endangered opposition leaders (if not by us, then by Europeans–though how dramatic would it be if Sec. Clinton placed a phone call to Mousavi to make sure he’s not under arrest and is free to talk?); an immediate infusion of funds to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Radio Farda service, which provides invaluable information from and within Iran; technical assistance against the regime’s attempts to block websites, shut down cell phone networks, etc.; suspension (by the Europeans) of various cultural and commercial contacts; pressure through international organizations on behalf of the Iranian people

2. If that doesn’t work, he can take stronger action (not that this president ever would), such as working with India and Pakistan to curtail or shut down access to refineries.

3. Ultimately, military power must be option for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons – though I’m NOT saying we should intervene militarily now on behalf of the protestors.